ronk wrote:"An opening post?" The "JExocet" discussion had been in this thread since you introduced the term in mid-April. A separate thread 3 months ago might have been a good idea, but not now IMO. If we start another thread now, where is the "JExocet" discussion supposed to continue?

In two previous posts I have written:'It's getting to the time when we should consider how to summarise or index our work on JExocets in this and other threads.'and 'I suggest that we open an Exocet/JExocet Summary thread starting with the agreed definition and followed with links to the examples different contributors have found.'

Why is it that only now, at the third time I've raised the subject, do you finally give any sort of response?

As this thread is now 24 pages long it's difficult for newcomers to find the results of our labours. Consider too that Sudopedia is virtually defunct. What I had in mind was something like <this>. I could only achieve this in separate thread, but as moderator maybe you could insert something at the head of this one.

I believe we should at least do something though, which I'll now leave for your consideration.

With respect to David P Bird's latest comments on puzzle 23333, although all the base digits satisfy the house counting procedure there is no underlying Swordfish pattern for digit 3, so you can't make Swordfish eliminations for that digit.

David P Bird wrote:As this thread is now 24 pages long it's difficult for newcomers to find the results of our labours. Consider too that Sudopedia is virtually defunct. What I had in mind was something like <this>. I could only achieve this in separate thread, but as moderator maybe you could insert something at the head of this one.

I believe we should at least do something though, which I'll now leave for your consideration.

My recommendation: As you suggest, post your JExocet definition and indices in this thread. Then, near the top of his opening post, champagne (or a moderator) can highlight your "post titles" with clickable links to these post(s).

David P Bird wrote:As this thread is now 24 pages long it's difficult for newcomers to find the results of our labours. Consider too that Sudopedia is virtually defunct. What I had in mind was something like <this>. I could only achieve this in separate thread, but as moderator maybe you could insert something at the head of this one.

I believe we should at least do something though, which I'll now leave for your consideration.

My recommendation: As you suggest, post your JExocet definition and indices in this thread. Then, near the top of his opening post, champagne (or a moderator) can highlight your "post titles" with clickable links to these post(s).

I have no problem, if ronk can do that to dedicate post 7 reserved in the thread "exotic pattern a resume" to david and to use it.

champagne wrote:I confess I did not look at the prerequisite, but your remark surprises me.

The additional exocets share the base of your's. How can it be that a condition on the base cells is ok on one side and not on the other!!!

There is something I don't catch

I corrected my above post to use QExocet instead of Exocet. My analyzer finds one "additional" QExocet per puzzle ... as opposed to the three additional Exocets that your solver finds. Here is my analyzer's output without ronk's restriction. You'll notice that the QExocets don't share the same base set.

ronk wrote:My recommendation: As [ronk edit: David P Bird suggests], post your JExocet definition and indices in this thread. Then, near the top of his opening post, champagne (or a moderator) can highlight your "post titles" with clickable links to these post(s).

I have no problem, if ronk can do that to dedicate post 7 reserved in the thread "exotic pattern a resume" to david and to use it.variations around that idea could be studied

It's mpossible for me to change ownership of posts. Even if I could, IMO there should still be a link to it in your opening post.

b) (JE+) must overlap an Almost Hidden Set that that restricts the object cells to holding one base digit. The simplest and most frequent situation will be when the AHS is an Almost Hidden Pair with a single extra digit locked in the object cells.

a) "that that" seems to be a typob) I don't see any other possibility that having a candidate locked in the object pair to form an AHS

I have difficulties with these diagrams.First one is ok,In the second and third one, I can't see the possibility to have so many occurrences of the digit.I don't see clearly the case where the cross line in stack 1 is empty and Q;R is forced in stacks 2 and 3.

In JE+ patterns (relying on condition 2b) the identity if the target cell won't be known. One object cell must eventually hold a base digit, and the other a candidate locked in the AHS, so any candidates that aren't in either set can be eliminated from both the object cells.

I don't see any other possibility that having a candidate locked in the object pair to form an AHSLook at ronk's extreme example < here >. There is an Almost Hidden Set (578+x)r2358c7. The object cell pair r34c7 must contain a base digit (1234) and a digit locked in the hidden set (578) so (69) can be eliminated from these cells.

I have difficulties with these diagrams.First one is ok,In the second and third one, I can't see the possibility to have so many occurrences of the digit.Yes, they are both impossible as there wouldn't be enough givens to make them solvable. However, individually, every one of the cells shown could be occupied.

I don't see clearly the case where the cross line in stack 1 is empty and Q;R is forced in stacks 2 and 3.That's impossible as then the digit would be excluded from the base cells if I understand you correctly.When I edited the definition to fix the typos you found, I added a brief proof to justify the eliminations which covers that.

BTW Aren't you being a little extravagant with the space your posts consume?